“A McKenzie
friend is somebody who accompanies a litigant in person to a court hearing for
the purpose of assisting him in such matters as taking notes, helping to
organise the documents, and quietly making suggestions – for example as to
questions to put to a witness. Although usually a non-lawyer, the McKenzie
friend should not be thought of as a species of lay advocate and has no right
to address the court.”

Originally,
a McKenzie Friend was literally a friend of a litigant in person who could
assist him in court. Or, it might be somebody offering support on behalf of a
charity. McKenzie Friends were never intended to become a way for profit to be
made.

It's
important to note that McKenzie Friends need no qualification, are not
regulated and have no indemnity insurance should they make a mistake. There is
no system that exists to ensure that a person acting as a paid McKenzie Friend
understands the law to begin with much less keeps up to date with changes in
law and procedure.

This
is a problem because you as a consumer have absolutely no idea whether the
person you hand over your money to has any idea what is going on or is actually
able to give you the necessary guidance. I recall seeing a McKenzie Friend
attempt to appear before Thames Magistrates’ Court in a criminal law case. It was immediately obvious
that he was not a qualified lawyer despite his attempt to exercise rights of
audience he did not possess. The District Judge quickly noticed the significant
errors he made from the start and booted him out of court. He made a comment as he went that
was telling – he told the DJ that “I appear in courts every day, nobody else
has a problem with me speaking on behalf of my clients”.

Some
years ago I came across a group of solicitors who had decided not to renew their
practising certificates and operate as a firm of “law advisers” to people
facing all sorts of legal problems. I asked why they would do that? The
director told me that it was to cut overheads because as lay advisers they did
not require insurance or the costs of being regulated. Nor could anybody step
in and fine them (or even take over their business) if they made mistakes.

TheLSB takes the view that there is no need to do anything about paid McKenzieFriends. They point to the “significant change” that the justice system is
going through – while they don’t say it I’d suggest that the most relevant
significant change is the removal of legal aid from pretty much all civil law
cases and its restriction in criminal law cases. They go on to talk about a
survey that showed “… 64% of consumers
with a legal problem do not seek independent assistance in dealing with it. In
this context, any moves to restrict consumers’ choice should be targeted and
based on evidence of detriment.”

For
me the idea that people may be going to a completely untrained, unqualified,
unregulated and uninsured person for legal advice with their problems is
evidence enough of a high risk of detriment that may be caused. Let’s not
forget that McKenzie v McKenzie (the case that gives us the name of McKenzie
Friends) was a family law case as are many cases now where McKenzie Friends
give assistance. Their clients are often fathers desperate to gain access to
their children – the sort of desperate people who need proper, professional
legal advice from a solicitor who is qualified, regulated and insured against
errors.

As the LSB alludes, most of the McKenzie Friends firms on the internet advertise themselves as a direct alternative to solicitors. They point out that their fees are significantly lower than those charged by a solicitor but they make no mention of the limitations of their services or their lack of qualifications to be giving legal advice in the first place. If you look at the comments on this Gazette story you'll see a McKenzie Friend claiming that having no knowledge of family law is no barrier to practising it. To me it reads as somebody having insufficient knowledge to recognise his own limitations - somebody else points out a few of his misunderstandings in following comments (wasn't me).

Ask
yourself this – when the government goes to court do you ever see the Secretary
of State rocking up with a McKenzie Friend to help out? Of course you don’t.
When did you last see a major business send along a director and an unqualified
McKenzie Friend to deal with a case? The celebs who seek privacy injunctions
never turn up by themselves with an unqualified adviser to steer them through
court do they? And why do you think that might be? It’s not because McKenzie
Friends offer a cost effective solution and all these people are too daft to
see what a good deal it is – it’s because they want quality legal advice from a
source they know they can trust, in other words a solicitor and/or a barrister.

McKenzie
Friends have their place. Where somebody is genuinely assisting a friend or
where a charity is providing support they can be invaluable. But when somebody
is conducting a business you have to ask yourself why have they not managed to
qualify as a solicitor if they have sufficient legal skills to resolve this
problem? If they don’t have those skills, then why would I want to pay this
person to advise me in court?

The
reason McKenzie Friends are so popular is because solicitors cost too much
money and, frankly most of them are hopeless at estimating costs (in my
experience at least). The profession must start charging fixed fees – it’s not
hard, I’ve been doing it for years and all it needs is a little thought to get
your fees correct. Once people see that they can get a proper solicitor for a
reasonable fee then paid McKenzie Friends will disappear.

Comments

Re fixed fees - go to many German shopping or news websites, and ad banners will invite you to type in the value of your legal dispute, and you'll get an instant quote for the work. It's also a lot easier for punters to see what the law is.

"But when somebody is conducting a business you have to ask yourself why have they not managed to qualify as a solicitor if they have sufficient legal skills to resolve this problem? If they don’t have those skills, then why would I want to pay this person to advise me in court?"

Because there is the barrier to entry as a solicitor that is the training contract. And training contracts are very hard to come by, and even more so if you are 50-ish unable to forego income because of supporting a family and unable to move across the country because of family.

I've supported people - free of charge and as a hobby and effectively - in family court, magistrates court, in pretrial for medical negligence, in contract disputes, in police stations, in property negotiations and in probate and tax affairs. And all without being "qualified" purely because of the restrictive practices of the Law Society.

Sure, training contracts make a lot of sense for youngsters entering the profession early. they are of less obvious value and necessity for people with years of experience working alongside, and against, lawyers.

Like you said "it's not hard, I've been doing it for years". I'd love to make a living out of it - but can't as not "qualified".

My head feels a little fuzzy after reading this. Your comment is precisely why restictive practises are so important!

The fact you treat the provision of legal advice as a hobby is very troubling. You are not qualified yet feel it's okay to advise people on how they conduct cases in court. Worse still you do this in situations where they are in a police station facing criminal charges. The fact you gained entry must indicate that you lied to the police about your status and told them that you are either a solicitor or an accredited rep (you say you are not qualified so I assume that means as a rep too).

Training contracts make a lot of sense not only for youngsters but for people relying on the legal advice they are being given! With respect, you have no qualifications and have not been through any training. If you mess up there is no policy of insurance to recompense your client and no regulator to prevent you doing it again. You are required to undertake no going training and so cannot know whether the legal knowledge you have acquired is either correct or current.

This may sound harsh, but you are a liability to the people you represent as part of your hobby!

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a
roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the
question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge
or take no further action (NFA)?” What are the
options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available
to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to
attend court. Charging means that you
are given police bail and are required to attend court in person. A summons is an order from the court for you
to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf. In many cases where a person is summonsed,
the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution. These can be a simple caution, which on the
face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional
caution. Conditions could include a
requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc. Either…

Big news in the UK today is the case of Laura Plummer, a 33
year old British woman who managed to “accidentally” plead guilty to importing
Tramadol painkiller tablets into Egypt in a bizarre misunderstanding on
Christmas Day. She has now been sentenced to three years imprisonment by the
court. In Egypt it seems that the possession and importation of
Tramadol is banned without a special prescription because it is widely abused
in that country. Ms Plummer has said that she did not know the medication was
illegal in Egypt and had taken it into the country for her Egyptian boyfriend,
Omar Caboo, who is also 33 years old. According to the news reports I’ve read
of Ms Plummer’s account and those given by her family to explain her actions, Ms
Plummer obtained the drugs from a friend here in the UK. It is unclear whether
that friend was in possession of a prescription nor, if they were, how it came
to be that they built up such an extensive stockpile if they genuinely required
the medication –…

I am a solicitor-advocate who specialises in motoring law with a particular interest in representing clients who have been charged with criminal driving offences involving alcohol, such as drink driving and failing to provide a specimen of breath.